Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Against Protestant Propaganda · Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death · A Catholic Wanted to Concede Too Much
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?
Since some have probably heard some of the rumours about me, or maybe even genuinely misunderstood me while reading me, here are a sample of accusations against me, though not so directed, answered, as well as some possible other reasons to keep silence about me:
A Woman Priest in the Catholic Church | Father Charles Murr
FULL SHEEN AHEAD `| 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tJfJ6XPEdk
You would agree that a layman, reading the missal, with no bread or wine, totally shutting up at the words of consecration, just imagining a priest elsewhere in the world saying that, and reading the rest of the Mass on his knees, again, in union with some faithful priest elsewhere, and not pretending to celebrate any Mass on his own, would not fall under that canon?
In German, I think it's called "Messandacht".
Mgr Lefebvre very early on, well before he had real canonic troubles, recommended people who had no access to the Latin Mass to "lire le Missel à la maison" ... you would agree that someone doing that would NOT incur any of the penalties of that canon?
Because, this is what I did on a fairly daily basis from a certain point in 1996 on to the day of 5 of February 1998, when Swedish shrinks bumped into my life. Now, they were, as most Swedes, or for that matter Danes, very incompetent on Catholic things, and they read up on what Fr. Murr just said, and concluded I either wasn't Catholic or a very confused one.
They have communicated this to what Charles Murr would deem competent Catholic authorities, and as a result, three of what Charles Murr would refer to as Popes have presided over several bishops getting me treated with an utmost suspicion which has ruined my life. Since one of them was Wojtyla, I have a real problem with joining a communion requiring its members to call him a saint.
Terry Barber, you are obviously free to offer sufferings YOU have for anyone you like, including the man that YOU consider the "Holy Father", I object to being treated as a hoarcrux for him and having OTHERS offer up sufferings they at least contribute passively to producing for him, or anyone else not of my chosing.
And by the way, Charles Murr, don't pray for me to remain celibate and don't hope any cardinal votes for me.
I'm a layman and intend to marry, supporting my family on my writings.
Your Church is free to condemn my writings or not, they are not free to keep them as its little secret and a hope for a better future pope.
Or whatever other reason people may have had to keep my writings secret.
Loving Your Enemy Isn't Optional
Breaking In The Habit | 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlPmOsvxM78
Loving one's enemy may not be optional, but there are circumstances in which it is also not possible.
If my circumstances don't change, and I have done my part to change them, but people of YOUR version of Catholicism have blocked, and no, Jews, Muslims, Evangelicals are not likely to replace them just because they are more comfy with Young Earth Creationism than lots of Catholics these days, I'm likely to be damned because I am not loving my enemies.
Jorge's conversion. Charity. Ensoulment? Marital abstinence? Lenten Penance? Mary's holiness!
What Catholics Believe - Full Episodes | 26 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVWQzogZpsY
13:10 You would agree that there is no backbiting when someone blogs and sends the blog post specific link (not just to the blog as a whole) to the person criticised?
I hope.
Because I regularly do so, and that means, on my estimate of Catholic morality, I'm not backbiting. If someone feels insulted and tells me, there often ensues a debate, and I often clarify I was not disrespecting the image of God, whatever I hated about their position (not in those words, I'm a layman).
So, Catholics divide the "lingua dolosa" (which I suppose is what Jews mean by Lashon Hara) into insult, calumny and backbiting. If I'm not guilty of any of these, I'm not guilty of "lingua dolosa" ... whatever Jews may say, or Protestants who use the category Gossip.
Do you agree or not?
- Joan LaFleur
- @joanlafleur9349
- If a situation can't be avoided in overhearing gossip, the best thing to do is defend the person that is the subject of detraction or calumny, change the subject and refrain from passing the conversation on to someone else. You can also pray for all involved and be a good example.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @joanlafleur9349 Supposing I don't know the person and am too tired to inquire?
14:08 You would agree this applies to coworkers who have had a good night's sleep?
Passively listening to someone who is a stranger, and after you are too exhausted is rationally speaking NOT a criterium of approving of the backbiting.
Just in case anyone is pretending I've showed passive approval of backbiting.
- Glenn Lego
- @glennso47
- What if you simply get up and walk away so you don't hear the people who are talking about someone? 😮
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @ Imagine:
a) I'm in a cyber, so going up and leaving would interrupt my work;
b) I'm in my sleeping bag eating breakfast or drinking coffee, and someone does it right next to me, walking slowly by in conversation, do I need to interrupt my breakfast just so I can get up and walk away?
I don't know that the other comments were really adressed to me. Sorry.
26:04 First of all, I'd like to know exactly in what context St. Thomas stated that the then present knowledge was provisional and could change.
Second, there is a huge difference between a changing understanding of embryology, where instruments are very close at hand to the thing studied, and astronomy, where the instruments are usually as far off as the naked eye, so that improved instruments just improve the minute details, but not the overall picture. Just in case Father Jenkins wanted to make a devious parallel to changing understanding of astronomy. No, we do NOT have an improved understanding of natural phenomena involved, not by much, in that instance, we just have an impoverished scholasticism.
28:01 Actually, not an overall bad understanding.
Anything that is a nutrient helping the embryo and fetus to grow comes to it through the blood of the mother, via the placenta and umbilical once these are formed.
Actual scientific progress on this matter has improved details, but not destroyed the overall picture of the science back then.
29:41 Also, the rational soul at conception or later, embryo usually do not enjoy the USE OF reason.
They have reason as a natural faculty, but they have not yet learned to use it.
Christ's soul didn't need that extra time before He could pray for His Blessed Mother, for instance, or make sure that She came to know She was sinless (on top of Mother of God, which She knew) through this other fetus who had precocious sanctification and use of reason and adored His God in St. Elisabeth's womb.
I do maintain that Her sinlessness was hidden from Her when She didn't understand "blessed among women" (given this in OT refers to "female secret agents" of a pretty bloody type, Jael and Judith) but was revealed to Her when Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... (meaning Her own Sisera or Holophernes had been told this in Genesis 3:15).
Our Lord loved His Mother, not just as a human creature, because She was His Mother, but also as God, because She was always doing the will of the Father. He arranged for Her to have the Sinlessness revelead in the most pleasant manner, in a meeting between two pregnant women.
32:00 Not so as for the recently conceived person to have an immediate use of reason.
Immediate faculty, yes, but a faculty not yet perfected by use. Like the toddler having already the faculty to walk or at least toddle, but not yet having learned to use it.
The use of reason in this life usually requires a brain, which the embryo does not yet have, since the object of reason comes in from the outside, through the senses.
- Susanna C Donovan
- @susannaCdonovan23
- "And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us." Your ideology is completely erroneous especially regarding the soul which is infused into the body at the moment of conception. Every human life is a miracle of God's creation and is destined to be born. Human life is not a disposable commodity. It's an abomination to think otherwise.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @susannaCdonovan23 Do you know what the words "use of reason" mean?
A man who is mad has not become an animal, he has still his faculty of reason, but intermittently or constantly, he lacks the proper use of it.
I would also say, an infant or according to some any person below 7 years does not have the use of reason. But that person still has reason.
I don't know how you can possibly class me among abortionists because I say that ordinarily a newly conceived embryo does not have the USE OF reason.
U N L E S S of course, you have been primed to suspect me for utterly un-Catholic things, and in that case I'd like to know how.
Because it seems, in that case someone slandered me.
- Joan LaFleur
- Fr Jenkins was speaking about Jesus being the exception in having immediate use of reason at the instance of conception. We believe our Blessed Mother and not scientists to know that we are infused with a soul at the moment of conception for she revealed to St Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ I did very clearly NOT say we are only gradually ensouled.
I very clearly DID say Our Lord (and I would add Our Lady) were exceptional in having immediate use of reason, which is a faculty of the rational souls, of the image of God, but which is not in full use in every man.
- Joan LaFleur
- I just want to make clear that the intellect is a faculty of having a soul and not a brain.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ I totally agree.
But having the faculty and having the use of the faculty are two different things.
- Joan LaFleur
- When and why should this difference be important?
The clump of cells vs. human being?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ I am v e r y certain that a human embryo, first cell that's neither ovum solo nor spermatozoon solo, is an image of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
I am also very sure it is not yet able to draw out a syllogism or formulate a conscious prayer.
Our Lord was. Our Lady was. That is what the quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent said. They had the use of reason. You know, that Catholic joke of an older sister on the birthday of her seven year old brother saying "congratulations, you can now go to Hell" (as in capable of committing mortal sin, being fully responsible for one's acts). That's how mature Our Lord and Our Lady were at the moment of conception, not that either had any propensity for using that maturity for mortal sins or going to the Hell of the damned.
Can a Catholic date another Catholic who has been divorced but not yet had an annulment?
Mercedarian Friars USA | 26 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcwXRQsWj4
For those reading this comment on my blog.
I have never married, and if someone is considering a certain "NN Lundahl" that happens to be my mother, who died recently under another civil last name. I have my mother's maiden name.
If someone has told stories about me being married, these are simply false.
It's possible (though not certain) some Swedes around Paris or some non-Swedes whose facebook acquaintance with me is indirect and superficial have presumed on the evidence of her existence on my friends' list that I'm a married man. This is not so.
No comments:
Post a Comment